In Response to Re: This doesn't make any sense : I did not do a player by player check up, but I think that you are looking at a greater period of time than the article is talking about, which is the last 5 years. If BB only got 9 starters out of 11 years, that would be pretty sad. No one, including myself, is saying that he is a poor evaluator of talent. There are misconceptions that he is some type of drafting guru or for that matter that his methods are the only way to have good drafts. Neither are true. It is what it is. The results do not lie. Posted by PhatRex

Wait - so if the Patriots retained their draft pick for MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, this somehow counts against them?

It's not the Patriots fault that they picked good players 6, 7, 8+ years ago AND convinced them to stick around.

Undie give me a break, maybe some fans are still living in 01/03/ and 04 but most of us realize its a new team. For example last year and last year alone the Pats were far better then the Colts. Right?Posted by MVPkilla4life

Yep. Pats were better than the colts. They beat the colts head to head, had a better record. But can you really dispute my point? There are plenty of people here still caught up in that old history as if it just happened. Really the only things that were there then that are around today are Belichick and Brady, right?

The jets deserve props for what they've done the past couple of years. Does that make them better than the pats over the last 5 (which I think is a relevant time frame), no. In that time, the pats have been to as many afccg's, won one, and been to the playoffs in 4 of those 5 years, but you can't discount what they've done the past 2.

let me add one other thing. While rex can take pleasure in the Jets 09 run, he can't dispute that they likely wouldn't have made the playoffs had Indy decided to play the second half of their reg season match up or if Cincy decided to play the following week.

In Response to Re: This doesn't make any sense : Why would keeping your players from before that work against you? Are you suggesting that the reason for a relatively poor percentage is that the team was so stocked with previous awesome draft picks that there was no room for another awesome draft pick on the roster? I guess if we followed that logic, all of those players not retained by NE would have likely gone to play for someone else and become superstars elsewhere.Posted by PhatRex

One other note to this Rex that I have considered for the current draft. The pats have had enough success that their roster is in pretty good shape. Yet they've got all these draft picks which (if the CBA is not settled) they must use or swap for other picks this year or picks next year.

More picks are always better than less picks unless there are not enough spots on the roster to justify them.

In Response to Re: This doesn't make any sense : That is as relevant as any other circumstance that may or may not have changed the course of any other game. If Welker hadn't been benched...pastsies would not have choked. If Sanchez didn't cough up the ball at the end of the first half against Pitt when he was sacked (leading to a TD) Jets would have not lost (the difference in the game was 5 points). Your claim is based upon the fact that a couple of weeks later, fully staffed, the Colts beat the Jets. Of course, apparently, you can crush a team 45-3 and then a few weeks later lose to them with the same team on the field. So, that victory tells you nothing. So, what is fair game for an excuse? An injury to a key player? A coaching decision to play or not play someone? A bad coaching decision to go for it on 4th down? Bad field conditions that lead to a decisive TD? A poor call by the refs? Posted by PhatRex

I see your point, and I do give credit where credit is due. The Jets took advantage of the opportunity provided them by going to the AFCCG in 09. That cannot be discounted.

But I think it is an important question to ask whether or not they would have even been in the playoffs had indy and cincy not rested their starters. This is entirely different than winning because another team has injuries or a player makes a mistake in a game. Those things happen, but not by choice. Resting multiple players is a choice.

In Response to Re: This doesn't make any sense : And BTW, your point is mixed with some contradictions. You think that Indy would have won if they had played their starters the entire second half because they won a couple of weeks later. However, you think Cincy would have won, if they 'decided to play' even though they were not only massacred that week, but then lost the following week to the Jets. So, does that playoff win mean anything or not?Posted by PhatRex

Rex - I can't make the assumption that either the colts or bengals would have won had they not rested their starters, but I can assume that their games would have been more competitive.

In the Indy game alone, the colts were ahead at the time they rested their starters in the second half and Painter was awful thereafter.

Tas - you specifically may give the jets credit for their recent play, but in your previous post you cited "most pats fans". On this board, there are plenty of pats fans unwilling to give the jets credit for anything.